Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Teaching Sales and Negotiation with Combining

Computer-Based Simulation and Case Discussions


Lionel Bobot

Marketing educators have recognized the need for better preparation of marketing students for sales careers.
This study compared the effectiveness of two different sales management course designs: one centered on
case discussions and the other combining a computer-based simulation with some cases. In addition to
evaluation of the research literature, the study involved experiments with six course sections composed
of 150 students. Both course designs produced statistically equivalent learning outcomes; there were no
significant differences between the two course designs in any of the nine outcome measures, including
objective measures and student perceptions.

Salespeople serves as a primary conduit between firms and on case discussions and a more novel design combining a
their customers; and business and nonbusiness students simulation with some cases.
alike have begun to recognize the importance of develop-
ing selling skills (Shaw 2007). Experts in the sales discipline Sales Management Pedagogy
suggest that approximately 80 percent of college students
graduating with a marketing major and nearly 50 percent Academicians teaching sales courses have begun to consider
of finance majors will spend at least a portion of their ca- innovative ways to enhance the learning environment in
reers in professional sales (Heckman 1998; Jones, Stevens, order to adequately expose students to the requisite skill
and Chonko 2005; Weilbaker 2001). In the same manner, set for succeeding in the sales profession. The process of
marketing educators have recognized the need for better selling relies on a variety of skills, including prospecting,
preparation of marketing students for sales careers (Chap- identifying needs, communicating, and closing the sale
man and Avila 1991). A sales management course is required (Sparks and Areni 2002; Widmier, Loe, and Selden 2007).
for graduation in almost all colleges of business, usually Skills training may include techniques for handling objec-
as an integrating “capstone” course. Although cases have a tions, closing techniques, techniques for identifying buying
long and established history in sales management courses, center participants, and negotiation techniques (Leach, Liu,
simulations have received attention more recently for both and Johnston 2005). A popular method that has been sug-
their increasingly sophisticated designs and their promo- gested for accomplishing this entails bringing more realism
tion of student interest. Consequently, I undertook this into the classroom (Hawes, Rich, and Widmier 2004; Mantel
experimental research study to investigate how combining et al. 2002; Stitt 2005).
a computer-based simulation with cases affected student A number of tactics for integrating sales theories with
performance against learning objectives. This investigation practical experience have been used by sales faculty. Pre-
involved evaluation of the research literature and then ex- sentations and the use of role-play are regarded as the most
perimental testing of the relative effectiveness of two sales important topic covered in sales-related academic curricu-
management course designs: a traditional design centered lum by both professors and sales representatives (Parker,
Pettijohn, and Luke 1996). For example, Chapman and Avila
(1991) referenced numerous studies where simulated “real-
world” environments have been created so role-playing
activities could be used as an experiential component of
sales courses. Other instructors have chosen to augment
this approach by involving real business professionals
Lionel Bobot (Post-Ph.D. program, Harvard Law School, Ph.D.,
ESSEC Business School and Marseille University), Professor, Nego-
(Alessandra and Wright 1977; Jones 2001) or students from
tiation and Sales Management, NEGOCIA Business School, Paris, different sales courses (Bobbitt et al. 2000; Chapman and
France, lbobot@advancia-negocia.fr. Avila 1991; Faria and Dickinson 1994; Mantel et al. 2002).

Marketing Education Review, vol. 20, no. 2 (summer 2010), pp. 115–122.
© 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1052-8008 / 2010 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/MER1052-8008200202
116  Marketing Education Review

Cases and Computer Simulations sales management courses; they also cited several studies in
which cases were found to be the more effective approach.
Cases and computer simulations are used widely. Faria Examples of recent articles advocating simulations include
(1998) reported that 28 percent of a random sample of pro- Faria (2002), Prensky (2000), and Wolfe (1997); articles
fessors across all business disciplines were using a business by Barnes, Christensen, and Hansen (1994), Levin (1999),
simulation game during the semester in which the survey Lundeberg, Levin, and Harrington (1999), and Lynn (1999)
was conducted; however, 52 percent of those surveyed had advocate cases.
used a simulation at some time, and only 7 percent of those Widmier, Loe, and Selden (2007) concluded that, al-
reported stopping because of dissatisfaction with business though much of sales management may be taught with
games. Among schools accredited by the Association to either cases or games, it is preferable to use both cases and
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (A ACSB), 97 percent a simulation for a variety of reasons. They concluded that
have used simulations in some way. Further, Faria (1998) simulations elicit greater responses from students than
found a trend of increased use of simulations compared do case studies and they are more effective in enhancing
with his results in an earlier (1987) survey. self-efficacy, whereas case studies are better at providing
Both case discussions and computer simulations are in- exposure to multiple industries and building written com-
tended to provide active learning in which students apply munication skills. Fripp, although an advocate of simula-
knowledge to practice. Both are consistent with Dewey’s tions, concluded that “the best results are achieved when
injunction that simulations are used in conjunction with other learning
careful inspection of methods which are permanently methods” (1993, p.  54). In developing this conclusion,
successful in formal education . . . will reveal that they he makes use of his extended learning model, which he
depend for their efficiency upon the fact that they believes shows that “no one learning method is able to
go back to the type of situation which causes reflec- provide all the knowledge and skills required by managers”
tion out of school in ordinary life. . . . They give the
pupil something to do, not something to learn, and (1993, p. 54).
the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking. A preliminary study by Teach (1993), using self-report
(1966, p. 154) questionnaires completed by business school graduates
three to five years after graduation, concluded that both
There has been continuing debate about the relative computer simulations and cases had made important contri-
effectiveness of cases and computerized simulations. How- butions to the learning of skills important in the graduates’
ever, the debate is less grounded than is desirable: Keys and current jobs, with some differentiation in those skills best
Wolfe concluded, taught by each method. For example, his results indicated
Many of the claims and counterclaims for the teach- that simulations were most effective in teaching how to
ing power of . . . games rest on anecdotal material or forecast and make decisions, plan and organize, adapt to
inadequate or poorly implemented research designs. new tasks, assess a situation quickly, and develop teams.
(1990, p. 311) Cases best taught how to put structure to unstructured
problems, analyze problems and data, think creatively, and
Lundeberg, Levin, and Harrington stated,
write effectively. Li and Baillie, analyzing original data,
Up until the mid-1990s, the match between the claims commented that “perhaps the most interesting conclusion
of case users . . . and a solid empirical research base drawn from this study is that cases and complex games
was remarkably weak. . . . Essentially, the conversa- play a similar role in the business policy course” (1993,
tions about case-based instruction over the last two
p. 344). They concluded that “the best strategy might be
decades have been full of heat, but with very little
light. (1999, p. xiv) to integrate both pedagogies and apply them concurrently”
(1993, p. 343).
Some professors and researchers prefer case discussions It seems clear from the research and analysis in the litera-
over simulations, some prefer the converse, and still others ture that students in sales management courses experience
advocate an integrated mixture of both. The research on many positive outcomes from both cases and computer
the relative effectiveness of cases and computer simula- simulations, although there is some continuing debate
tions is limited and conflicting. Keys and Wolfe, in their about their relative advantages.
1990 review, cited several studies that conclude students However, the research shows increasing support for the
learned more from simulations than from case studies in idea that both have value and that a flexible combination
Summer 2010  117

of the two, adapted to specific course learning objectives, such, respond differently to the various decision input
is appropriate. variables available to students. Each salesperson is assigned
In sum, I propose the following primary hypotheses to a unique, geographic territory. The product is a line of
regarding the effectiveness of two different sales manage- electronic video games that can be played on computers or
ment course designs: one centered on case discussions and a variety of gaming machines. Sales of these products are
the other combining a computer-based simulation with highly seasonal. This forces the students to carefully con-
some cases: sider their decisions from one decision period to the next.
Because students cannot hire or fire their salespeople, they
Hypothesis 1: Both case discussions and computer simu-
are forced to concentrate on the determinants of salesperson
lations have value.
performance. Their job is to maximize that performance
Hypothesis 2: Neither case discussions or computer (Cook 2004).
simulations is a panacea or has general superiority over I randomly assigned the two different course designs to
the other. sections. All six sections of the course were taught by the
Hypothesis 3: Among students using the two course same professor (the author) and used the same textbook
designs (with and without a simulation), there is no and the same cases (except for the three additional cases
difference in performance. used in the TCM design); they all met twice weekly on the
same days for classes that lasted one to one and a half hours,
during semesters of 15 weeks, excluding finals.
Method
Table 1 summarizes the allocation of class time and other
Experimental Conditions background information. Approximately 9 percent of the
enrolled students did not complete all of the outcome mea-
To test two different course designs, I used six sections of a sures (primarily because of absences on the day that most
sales management seminar taught at a NEGOCIA business of the data were obtained) and so could not be included
school from 2006 to 2008. in the samples.
One design, using the traditional case method (TCM), The relatively small fraction of enrolled students thus
made primary use of comprehensive cases, which students excluded was about the same across the two design treat-
read as homework and discussed in class. The second design, ments and the six course sections, and the excluded stu-
using computer simulation plus cases (CSC), replaced about dents were similar to those in the samples in terms of the
half of the case work with a computer simulation. background variables.
The sales management and negotiation seminar is usu-
ally taken in the last semester of undergraduate work. The
sections of this course, which are limited to approximately Course Learning Objectives
25 students each, have a mixture of students from all four For its sales management course, a requirement for all stu-
majors in the college of business. The TCM course design dents, the business school has adopted the following five
is fairly traditional, similar to that popularized by the Har- student learning objectives:
vard Business School. Cases for both course designs were
comprehensive and taken from the textbook Dalrymple’s 1. Improve sales and negotiation skills in critical
Sales Management: Concepts and Cases, by Cron and DeCarlo thinking.
(2003). The CSC course design made use of the MARS 2. Learn to think systemically (i.e., to think about the
sales management simulation (Cook and Cook 2003), a broader system involved and interactions within it
computer-based simulation of companies competing in a when considering specific decisions).
global casual shoe industry. This simulation, in use for over 3. Understand and integrate previous business course
17 years, has been used at this university for over 5 years. concepts to be able to apply the concepts in future
The MARS simulation is designed to accommodate business situations.
2 to 16 teams. Students take the role of a newly promoted, 4. Develop the ability to analyze a complex sales
first-line, district sales manager. They have responsibil- situation, identify key issues, and develop recom-
ity for directing and motivating five salespeople in their mended strategies and actions.
district. Each of the five salespeople in the district have 5. Improve ability to communicate (especially writ-
a unique set of preferences and experience levels and, as ten) clearly, cogently, and effectively.
118  Marketing Education Review

Table 1 Table 2
Background Information on Course Sections Outcome Measures

Traditional Computer Means and Statistics for Student Perception Outcome


Case Simulation Measures (1–5 scale)
Item Method Plus Cases
Q1: Thinking Strategically
Allocation of Class Time (percent) Q2: Thinking Systematically
  Conceptual material and review 33 27 Q3: Integrating Previous Courses
  Case discussions 54 27 Q4: Analyzing/Developing Recommendations
  Simulation (in-class portion) 0 33 Q5: Improving Communication Abilities
  Examinations 7 7
  Assessment and other 6 6 Means and Statistics for Objective Outcome Measures
Other Information (0–20 scale)
  Number of sections 3 3
  Students enrolled 74 72 Q6: Diagnosis Question
  Students completing all 67 65 Q7: Sales Formulation Question
   measures Q8: Implementation Question
Q9: Sales Thinking Vignette

Other learning objectives are not listed explicitly, such


as improving skills in working with others and in teams, • What considerations and issues would you want to
examine before making a decision in this situation?
and helping students prepare for successful careers after
college. Approximately 40 semester-long sections of this Students wrote responses to each of these four components
course are taught each year; some are entirely case based anonymously.
and some combine cases and computer simulations. Then a neutral outside party coded and randomized the
Clearly, decisions about pedagogy and evaluation of sheets and a different outside party, an individual experi-
the effectiveness of a sales management course depend on enced in teaching and evaluating sales management materi-
the learning objectives for a course in addition to other als, graded the papers. These four objective measures were
factors such as instructor skills and preferences. Although supplemented by anonymous student evaluations of the
the five objectives used in this study are associated with extent to which the course helped the respondents learn/
the author’s university, they are similar to and typical of improve/develop (appropriate wording for the item) each of
objectives (1) mentioned in mainstream sales management the five course learning objectives. They rated each compo-
textbooks, (2) used by many other professors, and (3) cited nent on a scale based on the following anchors: 1 = “not at
by various researchers looking at the effectiveness of cases all,” 2 = “slightly,” 3 = “to a fair extent,” 4 = “significantly,”
and simulations (e.g., Cook 2004; Li and Baillie 1993; and 5 = “very much.”
Widmier, Loe, and Selden 2007).
Managing Researcher Bias Issues
Measures
Several possible sources of bias were identified during the
I used nine outcome measures of two types: measures of experimental design and took steps to eliminate or reduce
objective learning (four variables) and student self-reports their potential. One could first ask about slanted learn-
(five variables) (see Table 2). ing objectives. However, the learning objectives used for
Four different components as objective measures were the courses and in the five self-report variables are those
used. The first three were students’ written answers to ques- developed by the college, not the professor, and they are
tions relevant to the course, each requiring both knowledge used for all of the approximately 40 sections of the sales
and application of a sales management concept—diagnosis, management course taught each year by six professors, each
strategy formulation, and sales implementation. The fourth with individual choices about textbooks and course design.
component was the students’ written response to a short The learning objectives are typical of mainstream objectives
business vignette, followed by a multipart question to in other colleges and seem to present no bias problems.
prompt strategic thinking: Second, all six sections of the course used in the study
• What questions would you ask? were taught by the same professor (the author), raising the
• What else would you want to know? question of biased differences in the two course designs.
Summer 2010  119

The following steps were taken to reduce this possibility: Table 4 summarizes the means and key statistical param-
(1)  using the same text, readings, lecture outlines, cases eters for the two design treatments (pooling the sections
(although more were used in TCM sections), and course within each treatment) on the background factors plus all
timing for each section of both designs; (2) avoiding case- or nine outcome measures.
simulation-biased outcome measures; and (3) gathering the The background factors were consistent for the two
data only after I previously had taught each design multiple treatment conditions, with no significant differences (all
times. I did not have preferences between the two designs had p-values of 0.21 or greater). There were no significant
or preexisting beliefs about their effectiveness. differences in any of the nine outcome variables between
Most important, the alternative of using multiple profes- the two treatments (the smallest p-value was 0.31).
sors would have introduced significant uncontrolled vari- With respect to student preferences, it may be of interest
ability into the course designs, including the five variables that student responses in this study were strongly in favor of
listed in item 1 above. Third, the four objective variables using a simulation as part of a sales management seminar.
were graded through a double blind process, without my The breakdown for anonymous, confidential responses to
involvement. the question, “What is your recommendation regarding
As previously explained, the students wrote answers using this simulation in the next course?” from the 22
anonymously, and then the sheets were coded and random- teams that participated in the computer simulation was as
ized by an outside party and graded by a different outside follows: 17 (77 percent) for “definitely yes,” 4 (18 percent)
party. for “somewhat yes,” and 1 (5 percent) for “somewhat
no” (from a team finishing last in its MARS simulation)
Results and Discussion on a four-point scale ranging from 1 = “definitely no” to
4 = “definitely yes.”
The data were analyzed with SPSS version 10.1, using a These responses and additional anecdotal feedback in-
one-way, between-groups (independent groups) design with dicate that the students generally liked having a computer
multivariate dependent measures. Primary output from the simulation as part of a sales management course, even
analysis is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Initially, it was though they also reported that it is a “lot of work” to learn
anticipated that a one-way multiple analysis of variance with and master. The positive, favorable reactions in this study
post hoc comparisons might be necessary, with both treat- to the use of a simulation are similar to those reported by
ment condition and class section as independent variables. Cook (2004) and Tompson (1995) in student surveys in two
The variations among sections within each of the two de- types of sales management courses and Walter, Coalter, and
signs were small enough, however, that it was not necessary Rasheed (1997) in an analysis of student evaluations.
to retain class section as an independent variable.
One set of data analysis evaluated the potential variabil- Conclusions and
ity among different sections with the same course design Recommendations
(treatment condition). Table 3 summarizes the means plus
results from the analysis of variance on the three back- It was encouraging that both the evaluation of the literature
ground factors and nine outcome measures for the three and the results from the field experiments in this study
sections in each of the two treatment conditions. There confirmed Hypotheses 1–3.
were no significant differences for any of the background On top of that, an instructor has considerable flexibil-
or outcome variables among the sections within each of ity to choose the relative emphasis given to cases and a
the two course designs. simulation.
As can be seen in Table 3, the smallest p-values (i.e., ob- Relative to the last point, it may be concluded that
served levels of significance, which are the probabilities that various factors could be considered in deciding on the use
differences as great as those observed would occur even if and relative scope of computer simulations and cases in
the null hypothesis were true) for any of the between-section designing a sales management course. These factors might
analyses were 0.24 and 0.28 for the background and outcome include the mission and objectives of the college; learning
variables, respectively. Therefore, because of this consistency objectives for a particular course; instructor strengths,
among sections within each design treatment, I concluded style, and preferences; student reactions and preferences;
that the data for all three sections within each of the two and logistical factors such as student access to computers
designs could be combined for the rest of the analysis. with appropriate software.
Table 3
Evaluation of Variations Between Sections Within Treatments
120  Marketing Education Review

Traditional Case Method Course Section and Statistics Computer Simulation Plus Cases Course Section and Statistics

F- p F- p
Item 1 2 3 M Ratio (Significance) 4 5 6 M Ratio (Significance)

Background Factors
  Number of students 23 24 19 23 18 23
   (sample size)
  Cumulative college GPA 2.96 2.81 3.02 2.92 1.463 0.239 2.87 2.82 2.84 2.85 0.074 0.929
   (4.0 basis)
  GPA at current university 2.94 2.78 2.98 2.89 1.076 0.347 2.82 2.77 2.75 2.78 0.100 0.905
   (4.0 basis)
  Sex (percent female) 52 42 47 47 0.251 0.779 48 44 35 42 0.413 0.664

Means for Student Perception Outcome Measures (1–5 scale)


  Q1: thinking strategically 4.00 3.87 4.11 3.98 0.468 0.629 4.22 4.06 4.04 4.11 0.461 0.633
  Q2: thinking systematically 3.96 3.67 3.89 3.83 0.855 0.430 4.00 3.94 3.96 3.97 0.035 0.966
  Q3: integrating previous 3.65 3.50 3.79 3.64 0.610 0.547 3.61 3.67 3.39 3.55 0.501 0.608
   courses
  Q4: analyzing/developing 4.39 4.33 4.21 4.32 0.393 0.677 4.39 4.17 4.22 4.27 0.699 0.501
   recommendations
  Q5: improving communication 3.61 3.37 3.74 3.56 0.715 0.493 3.52 3.44 3.26 3.41 0.514 0.601
   abilities

Means for Objective Outcome Measures (0–20 scale)


  Q6: diagnosis question 17.6 17.4 17.7 17.6 0.150 0.861 17.2 17.3 17.2 17.2 0.027 0.973
  Q7: sales formulation question 17.3 16.8 17.3 17.0 0.415 0.415 17.4 17.1 17.3 17.3 0.110 0.896
  Q8: implementation question 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.6 0.062 0.940 16.5 16.8 17.0 16.8 0.736 0.483
  Q9: sales thinking vignette 15.5 14.8 15.3 15.3 0.630 0.536 15.0 14.3 14.8 14.8 1.304 0.279
Summer 2010  121

Table 4
Summary of Treatment Effects

Traditional Computer
Case Simulation
Method Plus Cases p
Item (N = 66) (N = 64) F-Ratio (Significance)

Background Factors
  Cumulative college GPA 2.92 2.85 0.941 0.334
  GPA at current university 2.89 2.78 1.585 0.210
  Gender (percent female) 47 42 0.297 0.587
Means and Statistics for Student Perception Outcome Measures (1–5 scale)
  Q1: thinking strategically 3.98 4.11 0.959 0.329
  Q2: thinking systematically 3.83 3.97 1.043 0.309
  Q3: integrating previous courses 3.64 3.55 0.323 0.571
  Q4: analyzing/developing recommendations 4.32 4.27 0.210 0.648
  Q5: improving communication abilities 3.56 3.41 0.856 0.356
Means and Statistics for Objective Outcome Measures (0–20 scale)
  Q6: diagnosis question 17.6 17.2 0.824 0.366
  Q7: sales formulation question 17.1 17.3 0.311 0.578
  Q8: implementation question 16.6 16.8 0.579 0.448
  Q9: sales thinking vignette 15.2 14.8 0.875 0.351

Learning objectives for a specific course, which should • Providing students with an introduction to a num-
be in alignment with objectives of the department, college, ber of types of organizations and situations con-
and university, clearly are the cornerstone for designing a cerning sales management that they possibly might
encounter in their careers.
course. Integrated course design models in common use to-
day (e.g., Diamond 1998; Fink 2002) typically establish the In contrast, complex computer-based simulations have
learning objectives, then identify and develop correspond- advantages when course objectives include the following:
ing techniques for feedback and assessment, and finally,
• Experiencing more realistically the role and respon-
decide on appropriate teaching and learning activities. sibilities of a top decision maker in trying to posi-
It is not hard to imagine some objectives and assessment tion his or her organization in a tough, competitive
techniques that would have a definite bias toward either environment;
case or simulation activities. However, it seems clear that
• Experiencing the uncertainties and surprises pro-
duced by the unpredictable actions of competitors;
there is considerable flexibility in the learning activities and
that effectively could support mainstream learning objec- • Promoting student emotional arousal and
tives typical of sales management courses. A professor has involvement.
considerable flexibility to choose the relative emphasis Sales management courses provide an interesting, stimu-
given to each. Some suggestions about fits between learning lating challenge for both professors and students. Ongo-
objectives and use of simulations and cases follow. ing improvements in course design and process require
More extensive use of case discussions is appropriate effective use of a variety of pedagogical techniques. This
when course objectives and conditions such as the follow- study provides data-based support for the conclusion that a
ing are paramount: professor has considerable flexibility in choosing between
• Learning about major conceptual concepts and mod- course designs based on case discussions and designs that
els in the field; combine a computer simulation with case discussions.
• Establishing a close connection with student ideas
and responses;
• Providing substantial interaction and immediate References
feedback between students and the professor about
analysis, ideas, conclusions, and recommendations Alessandra, Anthony J., and John S. Wright (1977), “The Personal
dealing with typical situations; Selling Course: An Opportunity for Experiential Learning,”
• Emphasizing individual student performance; and in Contemporary Marketing Thought: 1977 Educator’s Proceed-
122  Marketing Education Review

ings, Barnett A. Greenberg and Danny N. Bellenger, eds., Motivation Management Capabilities of Salespeople,” Jour-
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 262–265. nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25, 3 (Summer),
Barnes, C., Roland Christensen, and Abby J. Hansen (1994), Teach- 269–281.
ing and the Case Method, 3d ed., Boston: Harvard Business Levin, Barbara B. (1999), “The Role of Discussion in Case Peda-
School Press. gogy: Who Learns What? And How?” in Who Learns What
Bobbitt, L. Michelle, Scott A. Inks, Katie J. Kemp, and Donna T. From Cases and How? The Research Base for Teaching and
Mayo (2000), “Integrating Marketing Courses to Enhance Learning With Cases, Mary A. Lundeberg, Barbara B. Levin,
Team-Based Experiential Learning,” Journal of Marketing Helen L. Harrington, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Education, 22 (April), 15–24. 139−157.
Chapman, Joseph D., and Ramon A. Avila (1991), “Sales Training Li, Eldon Y., and Allan S. Baillie (1993), “Mixing Case Method
for Students: An Experiential Approach,” Marketing Education with Business Games: Student Evaluations,” Simulation &
Review, 1 (April), 54–59. Gaming, 24 (1), 336−355.
Cook, Robert W. (2004), “The Pedagogy and Efficacy of Using a Lundeberg, Mary A., Barbara B. Levin, and Helen L. Harrington,
Sales Management Simulation: The MARS Salesforce Manage- eds. (1999), Who Learns What From Cases and How? The
ment Simulation Experience,” paper presented at the 2004 Research Base for Teaching and Learning With Cases, Mahwah,
National Conference in Sales Management, Reno, Nevada, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
April 14–17. Lynn, Lawrence E., Jr. (1999), Teaching and Learning With Cases,
———, and Kathryn J. Cook (2003), “MARS Sales Management Simu- New York: Chatham House.
lation,” Cook Enterprises LLC, Morgantown, WV (available Mantel, Susan, Ellen Pullins, David Reid, and Richard Buehrer
at www.shootformars.com). (2002), “A Realistic Sales Experience: Providing Feedback
Cron, William L., and Thomas E. DeCarlo (2003), Dalrymple’s by Integrating Buying, Selling, and Managing Experiences,”
Sales Management: Concepts and Cases, New York: John Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 1 (Win-
Wiley & Sons. ter), 33–40.
Dewey, John (1966), Democracy in Action, New York: Free Press. Parker, Stephen R., Charles E. Pettijohn, and Robert H. Luke (1996),
Diamond, Robert M. (1998), Designing and Assessing Courses and “Sales Representatives and Sales Professors: A. Comparative
Curricula: A Practical Guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Analysis of Sales Training Perceptions, Topics and Pedagogy,”
Faria, Anthony J. (1987), “A Survey of the Use of Business Games Marketing Education Review, 6 (3), 41–50.
in Academia and Business,” Simulation & Games, 18 (2), Prensky, Marc (2000), Digital Game-Based Learning, New York:
207–224. McGraw-Hill.
——— (1998), “Business Simulation Games: Current Usage Levels. Shaw, Doris M. (2007), “Building Sales Competences Through
An Update,” Simulation & Gaming, 29 (3), 295−309. Service Learning,” Marketing Education Review, 17, 1 (Spring),
——— (2002), “The Changing Nature of Business Simulation/ 110–119.
Gaming Research: A Brief History,” Simulation & Gaming, Sparks, John R., and Charles S. Areni (2002), “The Effects of Sales
32 (1), 97−106. Presentation Quality and Initial Perceptions on Persuasion:
———, and John R. Dickinson (1994), “Simulation Gaming for Sales A Multiple Role Perspective,” Journal of Business Research,
Management Training,” Journal of Management Development, 55 (June), 517–528.
13 (1), 47−59. Stitt, John E. (2005), “Academic Study + Real-World Experience: A
Fink, Dee (2002), “Designing Courses for Higher Level Learn- Next Generation Sales Force,” Selling (July), 12–13.
ing,” University of Oklahoma, Instructional Development Teach, Richard (1993), “What Do We Teach When We Use Games?”
Program, Norman, OK. in The Simulation and Gaming Yearbook 1993, Fred Percival,
Fripp, John (1993), Learning Through Simulations: A Guide to the Sheila Lodge, and Danny Saunders, eds., London: Cengage
Design and Use of Simulations in Business and Education, New Learning, 112−121.
York: McGraw-Hill. Tompson, George H. (1995), “Using Computer Simulations for
Hawes, Job M., Anne K. Rich, and Scott M. Widmier (2004), “As- Group Projects in Business School Education,” Journal of
sessing the Development of the Sales Profession,” Journal of Education for Business, 71 (2), 97−101.
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24, 1 (Winter), 27–37. Walter, Bruce A., Terry N. Coalter, and Abdul M. Rasheed (1997),
Heckman, James (1998), “Internet, Sales Focus to Affect Higher “Simulation Games in Business Policy Courses: Is There
Education,” Marketing News, 32 (25), 9–10. Value for Students?” Journal of Education for Business, 72
Jones, Eli (2001), “Selling to the Top: Teaching Key Account Sell- (1), 170−174.
ing,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 4 Weilbaker, Dan C. (2001), “Why a Career in Sales and How Do I
(Fall), 318–319. Find It?” Careers in Professional Selling, 1 (Fall), 4–5.
———, Carl Stevens, and Larry Chonko (2005), Selling ASAP: Art, Widmier, Scott, Terry Loe, and Gary Selden (2007), “Using Role-
Science, Agility, and Performance, Mason, OH: Thomson. Play Competition to Teach Selling Skills and Teamwork,”
Keys, Bernard, and Joseph Wolfe (1990), “The Role of Management Marketing Education, 17 (1), 69–78.
Games and Simulations in Education and Research,” Journal Wolfe, Joseph (1997), “The Effectiveness of Business Games in
of Management, 21 (4), 307−336. Strategic Management Course Work,” Simulation & Gaming,
Leach, Mark P., Annie H. Liu, and Wesley J. Johnston (2005), 28 (4), 360–376.
“The Role of Self-Regulation Training in Developing the
Copyright of Marketing Education Review is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

S-ar putea să vă placă și